NASA's $169M IT services contract to ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC shows mixed value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $169,365,193 ($169.4M)

Contractor: ALL Points Logistics, LLC

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2016-11-01

End Date: 2022-04-30

Contract Duration: 2,006 days

Daily Burn Rate: $84.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 15

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: IT

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR'S MISSION IS TO PROVIDE MSFC AND MAF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SERVICES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MSFC OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (OCIO). THE CONTRACTOR WILL: (A) OPERATE AND MAINTAIN EXISTING EQUIPMENT, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES; (B) GATHER, ANALYZE, DEFINE, AND DOCUMENT SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS; AND (C) PLAN, DESIGN, DEVELOP OR ACQUIRE, INTEGRATE, TEST, AND IMPLEMENT NEW SYSTEMS OR ENHANCEMENTS TO EXISTING SYSTEMS FOR THE FOLLOWING SERVICES: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (PWS 2.0) IT SECURITY SERVICES (PWS 3.0) IT PLANNING, POLICY, AND SERVICE INTEGRATION AND DELIVERY (PWS 4.0) IT INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES (PWS 5.0) AUDIO VISUAL INFORMATION SERVICES (PWS 6.0)

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35812

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $169.4 million to ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR'S MISSION IS TO PROVIDE MSFC AND MAF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SERVICES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MSFC OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (OCIO). THE CONTRACTOR WILL: (A) OPERATE AND MAINTAIN EXISTING EQUIPMENT, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES; (B) … Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 2. Competition was limited, raising concerns about optimal price discovery and potential for higher costs. 3. The contract's duration and scope suggest a significant reliance on the contractor for critical IT functions. 4. Performance context is limited, but the broad range of IT services indicates a complex operational environment. 5. The contractor's role in IT security and infrastructure is crucial for NASA's mission continuity. 6. The contract's value appears substantial, necessitating close scrutiny of performance and cost efficiency.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $169.4 million over its period of performance is substantial. While specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns are not provided, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure carries inherent risks of cost escalation if not rigorously managed. Benchmarking against similar large-scale IT services contracts for federal agencies is challenging without more granular data on service levels and specific deliverables. However, the broad scope of services suggests a significant investment that requires continuous oversight to ensure value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which is an unusual designation suggesting a complex procurement history or specific justifications for limiting the competitive pool. The number of bidders is not specified, but the designation implies that not all potential offerors were considered. This limited competition could potentially lead to less competitive pricing and reduced incentive for the contractor to offer the most cost-effective solutions.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition can mean taxpayers may not have received the benefit of the lowest possible price achievable through a broader, more robust bidding process.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) centers, specifically MSFC and MAF, which receive essential IT support. Services delivered include IT operations and maintenance, systems requirements analysis, and the planning, design, development, integration, testing, and implementation of new IT systems. The geographic impact is centered at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in Alabama. Workforce implications include the potential for direct employment by ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC and its subcontractors to fulfill these IT service requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) services sector, specifically focusing on computer facilities management. The federal IT services market is vast, with agencies increasingly relying on contractors for specialized expertise and operational support. This contract's value of approximately $169 million positions it as a significant award within this domain. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale IT support contracts awarded by agencies like NASA, DoD, or other civilian departments for similar scopes of work, considering factors like service complexity and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits for the small business ecosystem stemming from a small business set-aside. The primary contractor, ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC, is responsible for fulfilling the contract requirements, and any subcontracting decisions would be at their discretion, not driven by a set-aside mandate.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contracting officers and program managers. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee nature necessitates rigorous financial oversight to monitor expenditures and ensure costs are reasonable and allocable. Transparency is dependent on NASA's reporting practices and the public availability of contract performance data. While specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction is not detailed, NASA's Office of Inspector General typically oversees agency contracts for fraud, waste, and abuse.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

it-services, computer-facilities-management, nasa, all-points-logistics-llc, cost-plus-fixed-fee, definitive-contract, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, alabama, large-contract, it-security, it-infrastructure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $169.4 million to ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC. IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR'S MISSION IS TO PROVIDE MSFC AND MAF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SERVICES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MSFC OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (OCIO). THE CONTRACTOR WILL: (A) OPERATE AND MAINTAIN EXISTING EQUIPMENT, SOFTWARE AND SERVICES; (B) GATHER, ANALYZE, DEFINE, AND DOCUMENT SYSTEMS REQUIREMENTS; AND (C) PLAN, DESIGN, DEVELOP OR ACQUIRE, INTEGRATE, TEST, AND IMPLEMENT NEW SYSTEMS OR ENHANCEMENTS TO EXISTING SYSTEMS FOR THE FOLLOWING SERVICES: PROGRAM MAN

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $169.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-11-01. End: 2022-04-30.

What is the track record of ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC in performing similar large-scale IT services contracts for the federal government?

Information regarding ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC's specific track record on similar large-scale IT services contracts is not detailed in the provided data. To assess their performance history, one would need to examine past contract awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any documented issues or successes on previous government engagements. A thorough review would involve looking at the complexity, duration, and value of prior contracts, as well as client agency feedback. Without this external data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their experience and capability in managing a contract of this magnitude and scope for NASA.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) compare to other IT services contracts of similar scope and duration?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are common in federal IT services, particularly when the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset or involves research and development. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF offers flexibility but carries a higher risk of cost overruns for the government, as the contractor is reimbursed for actual costs plus a fixed fee. For contracts of similar scope and duration, agencies often aim for Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) or Fixed-Price Incentive Fee (FPIF) contracts to encourage cost control. However, the complexity and evolving nature of IT services can sometimes necessitate the flexibility of CPFF. The key to value with CPFF lies in robust government oversight to manage costs effectively and ensure the fixed fee remains reasonable relative to the effort.

What are the primary risks associated with the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award type for this contract?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation suggests that while the procurement was intended to be competitive, certain sources were excluded based on specific justifications (e.g., sole-source justification for a follow-on, specific technological requirements). The primary risks for the government include potentially limiting the pool of qualified bidders, which can lead to less competitive pricing and potentially fewer innovative solutions. It may also indicate a complex procurement history where initial full and open competition did not yield a suitable award, leading to subsequent restrictions. This can increase the risk of the government not achieving the best possible value due to reduced market participation.

What are the potential implications for NASA's IT infrastructure and security if the contractor fails to meet performance expectations?

Failure by ALL POINTS LOGISTICS, LLC to meet performance expectations on this contract could have significant implications for NASA's IT infrastructure and security. Given the contractor's responsibilities for operating and maintaining existing systems, gathering requirements, and implementing new ones, performance failures could lead to system downtime, data breaches, compromised network integrity, and delays in critical IT projects. This could disrupt research, operations, and administrative functions at MSFC and MAF. Inadequate IT security performance could expose sensitive NASA data to unauthorized access or cyber threats, potentially impacting national security and agency operations. NASA would likely invoke contract remedies, which could include corrective action plans, penalties, or even termination for default, but the immediate impact of failures could be severe.

How has NASA's spending on IT services, particularly computer facilities management, evolved over the past several years, and how does this contract fit into that trend?

NASA's spending on IT services, including computer facilities management, has generally trended towards increased reliance on contractors to manage complex and evolving technological needs. Agencies often seek to leverage external expertise and manage fluctuating workloads through contracting. This $169 million contract, awarded in late 2016 with an end date in 2022, represents a significant, long-term investment in IT support for specific NASA facilities. It aligns with the broader federal trend of outsourcing IT operations and maintenance, as well as system development, to specialized firms. Analyzing historical spending patterns would reveal if NASA has consistently awarded large contracts of this nature or if there has been a shift towards different contracting approaches or service providers over time.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract, and how are they monitored?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract. Typically, for IT services contracts, KPIs would include metrics related to system uptime, response times for service requests, security incident resolution rates, project completion timelines, and user satisfaction. Monitoring these KPIs is usually the responsibility of the NASA Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) and other technical points of contact, who would review contractor reports, conduct site visits, and analyze performance data against contractually defined thresholds. The effectiveness of the CPFF structure also relies heavily on the government's ability to track costs against performance milestones.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesComputer Systems Design and Related ServicesComputer Facilities Management Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONSADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: NNM14495731R

Offers Received: 15

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 190 S SYKES CREEK PKWY STE 4, MERRITT ISLAND, FL, 32952

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $193,844,858

Exercised Options: $174,275,344

Current Obligation: $169,365,193

Actual Outlays: $81,429,884

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 87

Total Subaward Amount: $25,501,993

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2016-11-01

Current End Date: 2022-04-30

Potential End Date: 2022-04-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2024-10-22

More Contracts from ALL Points Logistics, LLC

View all ALL Points Logistics, LLC federal contracts →

Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts

View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending